Suspended Full Bench rulings remain binding, and land acquisition compensation for protected cultivated holdings must be paid in lump sum.
A Full Bench judgment of a High Court remains binding on single judges and Division Benches even when its operation is suspended on appeal, because suspension stops but does not erase the ratio decidendi. On compensation for acquisition of land held below the ceiling area and personally cultivated by the owner, payment in instalments is inconsistent with the constitutional requirement of compensation at market value and is treated as violative of Article 31A(1); the compensation must be paid in a lump sum.
Issues: (i) Whether a Full Bench judgment of the High Court, though under appeal and its operation suspended, remained binding on single judges and Division Benches of the same High Court; and (ii) whether compensation for acquisition of land held by a farmer below the ceiling area and personally cultivated by him could be paid in instalments.
Issue (i): Whether a Full Bench judgment of the High Court, though under appeal and its operation suspended, remained binding on single judges and Division Benches of the same High Court.
Analysis: Suspension of the operation of a judgment prevents its execution or implementation, but does not obliterate the judgment or the legal dicta laid down in it. So long as the Full Bench decision stands, its ratio remains binding on all Benches of the High Court, unless reconsideration is warranted on a doubt as to its correctness.
Conclusion: The Full Bench decision remained binding on the Court.
Issue (ii): Whether compensation for acquisition of land held by a farmer below the ceiling area and personally cultivated by him could be paid in instalments.
Analysis: The acquisition concerned land of a person holding less than the ceiling area and personally cultivating it. In that situation, payment of compensation in instalments was held to be inconsistent with the constitutional requirement of compensation at market value and was violative of Article 31A(1) of the Constitution of India. Following the binding Full Bench ruling, the compensation had to be paid in a lump sum.
Conclusion: Compensation could not be paid in instalments and had to be paid in lump sum.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the acquiring authority was directed to pay the compensation in a lump sum within the time fixed by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: A suspended judgment remains binding unless set aside, and instalment payment of compensation for acquisition of a farmer's ceiling-surplus-protected holding personally cultivated by him is unconstitutional.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
